Expand +



Outsourcing BW - Does it make sense?

by Dr. Berg

June 16, 2010

  -- by Dr. Berg

A long time ago, at the first 'Meet-the-Expert' sessions at first WIS SAP BI conference in 2003, I was asked if outsourcing BW ever would make sense by many of the participants.

This was a time very much like now with an early recovery of the economy ( crash, 9/11 and a recession).

Unfortunately, unlike 2003, what I see in today's recession is often a blind approach: "we outsource SAP" in companies, instead of a balanced two step approach to treat ECC and BW very differently.

This blog is based on some earlier articles I wrote on this subject, and take a balanced and practical approach to the cost-cutting problem.

Some Background on the "Problem"

When organizations embarked on implementing ERP solutions in the 1990s, many did not foresee the natural progression of their implementation. By adapting standardized processes and standardized technology, they laid the foundation for the wave of outsourcing we see today.

Today the knowledge of ERP technologies is easily available and the systems are quite mature. As a result, the benefits of scale in supporting them are hard to ignore.

As an example, a company that serves multiple organizations can a fford to have specialized staff for upgrades, installations, help desk, 24-hour support and disaster recovery. On the other hand, this costly infrastructure may be hard to justify for a single organization.

Does BW Outsourcing EVER make sense?

While many treat this as an either/or decision. It is in fact 4 possibilities that should be examined:


Unfortunately, some custom management tools are built on a "nice-to-know" basis. These are systems that do not measure what drives the business but are satisfying some department's wants instead of needs. In general these are often found at regional levels or in subsidiaries that are allowed to evolve their reporting tools over time. Since these are not providing a competitive advantage and are often not required from a regulatory standpoint, they should be eliminated from the organization.

A small case for keeping these tools can be made if the industry solutions are highly standardized and, therefore, very low cost. However, these system normally also impact the focus of the organization, and benefits can be realized from removing these distractions.

In House

Most companies aspire to build decision support systems that are so good that they become a source for competitive insights that lead to an advantage in the marketplace. These BI tools can naturally not be bought out of the box (even though SAP can provide standard content and a 'head start'  to build them). Normally, one can find these BI applications in critical areas of the organizations, such as lending policy groups in banks, underwriters in insurance companies and production planning groups in manufacturing companies (i.e. IP, BPC, APO, Xcelsius etc.)

It is important to note that while the processes of executing the decisions may be standardized, support for making decisions is often not. Therefore, it is increasingly important to maintain flexibility and responsiveness to the users. In addition, outsourcing these BI tools may lead to sharing "know-how" that can be made available to competitors. This may reduce the company's long-term market advantage. As a result of these factors, these tools are best developed and maintained in house.


Early adaptors of BI tools may experience a period of good competitive advantages. However, as the rest of the industry adapts these standardized tools, the systems are no longer a source of competitive advantage. Instead, they have become a part of the "must-have" infrastructure. We often find this type of analytical support tool in standardized process areas such as shipping, receiving, call centers, customer interaction tracking, etc.

To maintain any form of continuous competitive advantage, the BI systems must continue to evolve or risk becoming an industry commodity. If the reporting and analysis tool is allowed to become a commodity, and the competitive advantage is surrendered, it will become a candidate for outsourcing. The decision to evolve the system is therefore a strategic one.


While IT support organizations may argue to the contrary, there are some simple reporting tools that can be outsourced. These are systems that serve the function of monitoring the business, rather than supporting complex business decisions. We often find them in c ompanies that have SAP solutions and in IT organizations that are very mature.

These decision support systems do not provide a competitive advantage, but are essential for good "business practices." They are often reactive in nature. As a result, they are required in the organization but not a source for future growth or a focus of new business development. In addition, the technology knowledge is available in the marketplace. With this backdrop, a company can focus on a cost-benefit analysis of the outsourcing decision and often realize substantial financial benefits of removing these tools from their internal infrastructure.


As the outsourcing wave of the transaction processing continues, there are mounting pressures to seriously examine which reporting tools can be bundled into the outsourcing packages. In this environment, it is important that companies does not blindly look at cost savings, but also considers which management tools are critical to their competitive advantage.

A company that signs any deal based solely on cost savings can risk becoming a commodity business with no real ability to take advantage of future opportunities to distinguish themselves from the competition.

However, to blindly state that there are no management tools that can be outsourced is equally shortsighted. A balanced view must be taken when deciding where to draw the line. This decision should be based on the level of maturity of the industry (as demonstrated by standardization) as well as the competitive standpoint of the company.

In short, as the pressure to reduce IT spending continues, the decision when to outsource management systems is being forced on companies. A strategic balanced approach is the only thing that makes sense.

-- More ponderings to come..

Dr. Berg

 (more reading: Lacity, M., Wilc ox, P., and Feeny, D. The Value of Selective IT Outsourcing. Sloan Management Review, Spring 96, pp. 13-25).

An email has been sent to:

More from SAPinsider


Please log in to post a comment.

Davin Wilfrid

9/25/2013 8:45:03 PM

Berg -- Great post. It also seems to me -- based on conversations with customers at our events -- that many companies aren't putting enough forethought into the organizational and human challenges involved in outsourcing. Those that view outsourcing strictly as a cost-saving initiative seem to be especially bad at things like establishing clear deliverables and maintaining ongoing communication with the outsourcing provider. In the end they lose much of the value they should gain from outsourcing, because the on-site team spends too much time putting out fires and not enough time on adding business value. Just my observation.

- Davin